Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:31:07.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phoneme and supralect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

J. A. Perry Jr
J. A. Perry Jr
Affiliation:
(East Providence, R.I., USA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since the appearance of the monograph On Defining the Phoneme (Twaddell, 1935), it has become customary to classify the views of the phoneme into the four categories: mentalistic, physical, functional, and abstract. The reader is also referred to Jones (1957, and 1967: 212 ff.) and Fudge (1970) for discussions on that basis. However, we can achieve additional insight into the problem of defining the phoneme if we classify the views of the phoneme, this time, on a populational basis. By this, we mean whether the phoneme is defined as a unit of (1) an idiolect, (2) a dialect, (3) a multidialect, or (4) a supralect.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , June 1974 , pp. 13 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arend, M. Z. (1934). ‘Baudouin de Courtenay and the phoneme idea’, Le Maître Phonétique, 2–3.Google Scholar
Baudouin de Courtenay, J. (1895). Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alter-nationen: ein Capitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg: Trübner. [Tr. in Baudouin de Courtenay (1972) 144–212]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudouin de Courtenay, J. (1972). A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology, tr. and ed. by Stankiewicz, E.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1948). ‘A set of postulates for phonemic analysis’, Language, 24, 3–46. [Reprinted in Makkai (1972) 167–99.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1935). ‘The stressed vowels of American English’, Language, 11, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). ‘The nature of structural descriptions’, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, ch. 4. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Makkai (1972) 401–23]Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (1965). The Phonemes of English, 2nd printing. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1934). ‘The word “phoneme ”‘, Le Maître Phonétique, 44–6.Google Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1967). ‘The nature of phonological primes’, Journal of Linguistics, 3, 1–36. [Reprinted in Makkai (1972) 500–21.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1970). ‘Phonology’, in New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. by Lyons, J., 76–95. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Heffner, R-M. S. (1936). ‘The program of the Prague phonologists’, American Speech, 11, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1957). ‘The history and meaning of the term “phoneme”’, supplement to Le Maître Phonétique, 1–20. [Reprinted in Jones (1967) 253–69.]Google Scholar
Jones, D. (1967). The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use, 3rd ed.Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Joos, M., ed. (1966). Readings in Linguistics I, 4th ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kruszewski, M. (1879). Nabljudenija nad nekotorymi fonetičeskimi javlenijami, svjazannymi s akcentuaciej. Kazan'.Google Scholar
Kruszewski, M. (1881). Über die Lautabwechslung und die Prinzipien der Sprach-entwicklung. Kazan'.Google Scholar
Makkai, V. B., ed. (1972). Phonological Theory: Evolution and Current Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Müller, F. M. (1869). Rig-Veda-, Das älteste Lehrbuch der Vedischen Phonetik, Sanskrit-Text mit Übersetzung und Anmerkungen. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Müller, F. M. (1876). ‘On spelling’, The Fortnightly Review, 19, 556–79.Google Scholar
Perry, J. A. Jr (1972). ‘The simple vowel and semi-vowel phonemes of English’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by Rigault, A. and Charbonneau, R., 753–67. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1947). Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de (1959). Course, in General Linguistics, tr. by Baskin, W.. New-York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Smith, H. L. Jr (1967). ‘The concept of the morphophone’, Language, 43, 306–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, M. (1947). ‘On the analysis of English syllabics’, Language, 23, 137–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, H. (1877). Handbook of Phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1888). A History of English Sounds from the Earliest Period with Full Word-lists. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Trager, G. L., and Smith, H. L. Jr (1957). An Outline of English Structure, 3rd printing. Washington: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1969). Principles of Phonology, tr. by Baltaxe, C.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Twaddell, W. F. (1935). On Defining the Phoneme. (Language Monograph, 16.) Baltimore: LSA. [Reprinted in Joos (1966) 55–79]Google Scholar
Winteler, J. (1876). Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt. Leipzig: C. F. Winter'sch Verlagshandlung.Google Scholar
Zwirner, E., and Zwirner, K. (1970). Principles of Phonometrics, tr. by Bluhme, E.. University: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar